End policing for profit

San Francisco Chronicle

August 22, 2016Updated: August 22, 2016 12:05am

Photo: Jim Cole, Associated Press

Littleton Police Department Capt. Chris Tyler looks though the file of convicted drug dealer Mike Millette at the police station in Littleton, N.H., on Wednesday, June 1, 2016. On the growing drug problem, "If you asked me when the epidemic first started, I would have said, Arrest everybody. But now looking at the magnitude of the problem and having a better understanding of it, treatment and rehabilitation are the better solutions." (AP Photo/Jim Cole)

This is one of those issues where reform-minded Democrats and Republicans should find common cause — ending civil asset forfeiture abuses, also known as “policing for profit.” Civil asset forfeiture is what happens when authorities seize cash, homes, cars or other property because they see a link between the property and a crime. Police may see cash and think drug profits. Prosecutors might take a house used to grow marijuana. This system is rife for abuse because, while prosecutors have to prove reasonable doubt to convict individuals of a crime, the bar is lower when they take people’s possessions. Under federal law, owners often have to go to court to prove their innocence to get back what authorities took.

California lawmakers have tried to inject fairness into a one-sided system. Under state law, local law enforcement has to win a conviction to keep most seized property. (Cash seizures of more than $25,000 are an exception.) But there’s a big loophole called “equitable sharing,” which allows local law enforcement to work with the federal prosecutors. The feds enjoy a lower standard of proof — and they have added a huge sweetener to the process. When local police work with the feds, local governments can keep up to 80 percent of the seized property. Local prosecutors don’t have to win a conviction and the feds get to keep what the locals do not.

Despite the state’s “above average” laws, California’s “heavy participation” in equitable sharing prompted the Institute for Justice to rate California the second worst state in the nation on civil asset forfeitures. When state Sen. Holly Mitchell, D-Los Angeles, read about “equitable sharing” abuses, she introduced SB433 to require a criminal conviction before the government could keep most seized assets. The bill sailed through the Legislature with bipartisan support last year, then hit a roadblock when law enforcement groups rallied to oppose it. This month supporters worked out a compromise. With the support of the ACLU and neutral position by law enforcement groups, SB443 passed in the Assembly. If the Senate passes the new version of the bill, as expected, it will go to the governor’s desk. Gov. Jerry Brown should sign it.